Yes, but everything the script did, a human being could have legally done, albeit slower. In fact, the computer was INTENDED for that purpose, and the use of Recap had already been sanctioned.
Where else do you not have to cache everything you say in Politically Correct terms? Where else can you call a moron a moron and reduce his ego to the whimpering puddle of puke it should be?
The real world, for those of us with balls and an income that is not dependent on the morons in question. :)
I was thinking about it, actually, and I am much bitchier in real life than online. Here's hoping they don't pass a 'No Jerks In Real Life' law. I would be SCREWED.
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not just the daft laws - it's the daft police
I am friends with two people in the industry, and have used child care intermittently for several years. If anything, I'd say that it needs to be more.
Why? Because those fees pay for the people who make surprise visits and monthly inspections and Oklahoma has a bad track record for finding violations, because they don't have enough well-trained people.
They get new people and just have to throw them out there, and they can't afford to hire as many as they need. So providers who are cutting corners on care get a free ride on the abuse and neglect that they dole out. :(
I just signed up for Netflix and I love it. However, all of my friends complained that there weren't many good movies to stream, and they don't bother to do it. I'm a geek, so having so many documentaries to stream is AWESOME but I'm a pretty small demographic.
In addition, all of those people who are raving about the article must have missed the part where they talked about Netflix only being able to offer so much streaming by slipping throught a windowinging loophole, which may be closed when 'unhappy studios or cable companies... renegotiate their contract with Starz to discourage it from working with Netflix'. Hmm.
Sounds like we don't know how stiff a competitor Netflix is until we see whether or not the cable industry is going to close that loophole. In a few years, let's talk again about this. For now, not enough info.
I've read several articles and they all say that she submitted it for approval, and next thing you know, it was splashed everywhere.
Without having the details on the school's side of the story, it sounds like they never got back to her to let her know that they liked it, so they would discuss terms. They just ran with it. It really sounds like the school misunderstood the intent of her submission (because jocks and administrators just aren't artists).
So she contacted them and the jocks replied by saying, 'Nah, nah, nah, boo-boo. Deal with it.' and bristled about it, so now she's suing their smug asses. :) Bad PR move for them. Probably they could have worked something out, like a nominal fee and credit.
I disagree. I've read several articles and they all say that she submitted it for approval, and next thing you know, it was splashed everywhere.
It sounds like they never got back to her to let her know that they liked it, so they would discuss terms. They just ran with it. It really sounds like the school misunderstood the intent of her submission (because jocks and administrators just aren't artists).
So she contacted them and the jocks replied by saying, 'Nah, nah, nah, boo-boo. Deal with it.' and bristled about it, so now she's suing their smug asses. :)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Still Lying (Rose the Retard)
You obviously haven't done any research at all. Maybe Mike is whining and maybe he isn't. I don't really care. Mike is (obviously) not the only MagicJack user so why should we take his experience as the be-all/end-all of the debate? If you run a search for MagicJack, you will find tons of people complaining about the following:
MagicJack worked just fine with FreeConference until recently. Lots of people tried it out, found that it worked for them, and purchased it. Then all of the sudden, after an update, they started having issues. They called in and kept being told that there were no issues, just call this other number. Now we find out that MagicJack removed functionality for a perfectly valid reason, but failed to alert customers of the upcoming change, failed to change their site information, and are still failing to tell the truth about their now-limited functionality.
Don't those customers have a right to be upset? Don't prospective customers who are being lied to have a right to be upset? Are all of those people whiny retards as well? Or are you just an idiot?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Still Lying (Rose the Retard)
Umm... How in the world is FreeConference a Calling Party Pays service? The calling party doesn't pay. At all. Ever. That pretty much makes it NOT a CPP service.
Further, if the service provider flat-out tells you that there are no limitations, why should I expect there to be limitations? When they advertise it and you chat them and ask them and they still deny having any limitations, should you still expect limitations? And at what point is it okay (in your opinion) to accept what they tell you?
You seem to think that I want MagicJack to stop blocking FreeConference. I don't think they should do that. What I want is for them to be honest about their services. It's cheap enough to not piss people off if you're just upfront with them.
If they were honest about it, people like Mike could advise their clients to use a different service when making the appointment, as opposed to screwing everything up across time zones when you go to enter the conference.
It seems like you think that people have to have a paranoid mentality or a victim mentality. Which are you, Coward? Lol, I guess being called a victim is the new being called a Nazi. :)
No failure. A customer doesn't have the same responsibilities as a business does. In this case, the business has a duty (both morally and legally) to disclose any information that could impact my buying decision. What does it matter if I've read product reviews or not? I shouldn't have to disclose that when asking them to provide or confirm information.
Yeah, but he doesn't have the guts to put a statement on his site, or to tell prospective or complaining customers what the issue is. I think if they HAD told (and wouldn continue to tell, or even start to tell) everyone who called, 'Sorry, we can't provide a connection to that service because of this good reason.', THAT would be gutsy and forthcoming.
Let's quit talking about the FCC and start talking about the FTC. :)
According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement or omits information that is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and is 'material' -that is, important- to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.
Consumers obviously view this as important, or it wouldn't be all over the Internet. FreeConference is a hugely popular service and not being able to use it with MagicJack is very important. Remember that users could use FreeConference until a recent update. They removed that functionality.
The FTC also says that no statement should be used in any advertisement which creates a false impression of the usability of the product offered. Even though the true facts are subsequently made known to the buyer, the law is violated if the first contact or interview is secured by deception. In other words, 100% means 100%. Unlimited means unlimited. It doesn't mean 99.9% or with some limits.
I asked questions that a reasonable buyer would ask, to hear what they would say to a reasonable buyer. It's their job to disclose the information that I asked for. They should have told me that, no, there were some known issues with some conference services and that calls were not unlimited. To do otherwise is misleading, deceptive, and illegal. :)
Oh, also, FreeConference's business model is hardly secret. Where did you get that idea?
Why would I? I wanted to know what they were telling prospective customers, not prospective investigative reporters. They told you no FreeConference.com, but they told me that there were NO limits on calls and NO records on issues for conference calling. That's pretty contradictory and was exactly my point. They are still lying to people.
On the post: FBI Investigation Into Programmer For Freeing The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Whats the Issue Here?
On the post: FBI Investigation Into Programmer For Freeing The Public Domain
Re: Whats the Issue Here?
On the post: Congress Not Yet Willing To Outlaw Being A Jerk Online
Re:
The real world, for those of us with balls and an income that is not dependent on the morons in question. :)
On the post: Congress Not Yet Willing To Outlaw Being A Jerk Online
Re: Re:
On the post: The Rule Of Law Over The Rule Of Reason
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not just the daft laws - it's the daft police
Why? Because those fees pay for the people who make surprise visits and monthly inspections and Oklahoma has a bad track record for finding violations, because they don't have enough well-trained people.
They get new people and just have to throw them out there, and they can't afford to hire as many as they need. So providers who are cutting corners on care get a free ride on the abuse and neglect that they dole out. :(
On the post: Congress Not Yet Willing To Outlaw Being A Jerk Online
On the post: The Rule Of Law Over The Rule Of Reason
Re: Re: It's not just the daft laws - it's the daft police
On the post: Forget Piracy Or Boxee... Could Netflix Take Down Cable?
Re: Re: Re: Torrents still rule
On the post: Forget Piracy Or Boxee... Could Netflix Take Down Cable?
Re: Torrents still rule
On the post: Forget Piracy Or Boxee... Could Netflix Take Down Cable?
New Netflix Subscriber
In addition, all of those people who are raving about the article must have missed the part where they talked about Netflix only being able to offer so much streaming by slipping throught a windowinging loophole, which may be closed when 'unhappy studios or cable companies... renegotiate their contract with Starz to discourage it from working with Netflix'. Hmm.
Sounds like we don't know how stiff a competitor Netflix is until we see whether or not the cable industry is going to close that loophole. In a few years, let's talk again about this. For now, not enough info.
On the post: Alumnus Sues NYU Over Logo That The School Asked Her To Design
Without having the details on the school's side of the story, it sounds like they never got back to her to let her know that they liked it, so they would discuss terms. They just ran with it. It really sounds like the school misunderstood the intent of her submission (because jocks and administrators just aren't artists).
So she contacted them and the jocks replied by saying, 'Nah, nah, nah, boo-boo. Deal with it.' and bristled about it, so now she's suing their smug asses. :) Bad PR move for them. Probably they could have worked something out, like a nominal fee and credit.
On the post: Alumnus Sues NYU Over Logo That The School Asked Her To Design
Re: scenario plus horse and barn door
It sounds like they never got back to her to let her know that they liked it, so they would discuss terms. They just ran with it. It really sounds like the school misunderstood the intent of her submission (because jocks and administrators just aren't artists).
So she contacted them and the jocks replied by saying, 'Nah, nah, nah, boo-boo. Deal with it.' and bristled about it, so now she's suing their smug asses. :)
On the post: How Performing Rights Groups Funnel Money To Top Acts And Ignore Smaller Acts
Re: They Monitor the Top 200
On the post: Can A Phone Service Provider Block Calls To Numbers It Doesn't Like?
Re: Magic Jack
On the post: Can A Phone Service Provider Block Calls To Numbers It Doesn't Like?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Still Lying (Rose the Retard)
MagicJack worked just fine with FreeConference until recently. Lots of people tried it out, found that it worked for them, and purchased it. Then all of the sudden, after an update, they started having issues. They called in and kept being told that there were no issues, just call this other number. Now we find out that MagicJack removed functionality for a perfectly valid reason, but failed to alert customers of the upcoming change, failed to change their site information, and are still failing to tell the truth about their now-limited functionality.
Don't those customers have a right to be upset? Don't prospective customers who are being lied to have a right to be upset? Are all of those people whiny retards as well? Or are you just an idiot?
On the post: Can A Phone Service Provider Block Calls To Numbers It Doesn't Like?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Still Lying (Rose the Retard)
Further, if the service provider flat-out tells you that there are no limitations, why should I expect there to be limitations? When they advertise it and you chat them and ask them and they still deny having any limitations, should you still expect limitations? And at what point is it okay (in your opinion) to accept what they tell you?
You seem to think that I want MagicJack to stop blocking FreeConference. I don't think they should do that. What I want is for them to be honest about their services. It's cheap enough to not piss people off if you're just upfront with them.
If they were honest about it, people like Mike could advise their clients to use a different service when making the appointment, as opposed to screwing everything up across time zones when you go to enter the conference.
It seems like you think that people have to have a paranoid mentality or a victim mentality. Which are you, Coward? Lol, I guess being called a victim is the new being called a Nazi. :)
On the post: Can A Phone Service Provider Block Calls To Numbers It Doesn't Like?
Re: Re: Re: RE: Still Lying
On the post: Can A Phone Service Provider Block Calls To Numbers It Doesn't Like?
Re: Re:
Responding to ONE blog is just not enough.
On the post: Can A Phone Service Provider Block Calls To Numbers It Doesn't Like?
Re: Re: Re: RE: Still Lying
According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement or omits information that is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and is 'material' -that is, important- to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.
Consumers obviously view this as important, or it wouldn't be all over the Internet. FreeConference is a hugely popular service and not being able to use it with MagicJack is very important. Remember that users could use FreeConference until a recent update. They removed that functionality.
The FTC also says that no statement should be used in any advertisement which creates a false impression of the usability of the product offered. Even though the true facts are subsequently made known to the buyer, the law is violated if the first contact or interview is secured by deception. In other words, 100% means 100%. Unlimited means unlimited. It doesn't mean 99.9% or with some limits.
I asked questions that a reasonable buyer would ask, to hear what they would say to a reasonable buyer. It's their job to disclose the information that I asked for. They should have told me that, no, there were some known issues with some conference services and that calls were not unlimited. To do otherwise is misleading, deceptive, and illegal. :)
Oh, also, FreeConference's business model is hardly secret. Where did you get that idea?
On the post: Can A Phone Service Provider Block Calls To Numbers It Doesn't Like?
Re: RE: Still Lying
Next >>